It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
science.slashdot.org.../11/15/192222 . I do not believe that the government is responsible for that. I believe that these corporations just want our attention and that the television people are no different. They want our attention just as much as the others. I think the unfortunate thing is that the television people keep the unhappy people under their control by showing all of those junk shows like American Idol, Lost, and a few other shows that keep them satisfied. These unhappy people are kept happy because of these shows on television, I guess, that makes them less wanting to rebel because it makes them more passive. It also makes them less critical thinkers. It also erodes at their awareness. If they keep showing escapist behavior all the time like that they’ll never be aware of what’s going on.
'TV doesn't really seem to satisfy people over the long haul the way that social involvement or reading a newspaper does,' says researcher John P. Robinson. 'It's more passive and may provide escape — especially when the news is as depressing as the economy itself. The data suggest to us that the TV habit may offer short-run pleasure at the expense of long-term malaise.' Unhappy people also liked their TV more:
I would like to begin by thanking frankidealist for inviting me to debate this incredibly relevant topic.
To ask as a blanketed term if it is the governments fault that our educational systems which were once known as the highest ranking in the world are in fact solely responsible for the downtrend, then the simple answer would have to be yes, it most certainly has allowed the bureaucratic deficiency to lead the current state of decline.
We will take a more in depth look at this further on in the debate.
Next in order to the education decline is the regulatory statutes allowable today which have been proven in a multitude of tests to be not only harmful to the environment and in case studies livestock, but just as dangerous if not more so to humans in the long term.
Practices such citywide fluoridation and elementary school programs which advocate fluoride rinses once a week without appropriate studies to discover the ill affects to developing children.
Vaccines are also a serious consideration as it is a known factor in the death and disablement of many children. Vaccines known to contain Mercury an extremely toxic substance has been discovered and yet was continued to be allowed use as the bureaucrats drug their feet even after proof was amply provided.
Also on the rise and worthy of consideration under the legislative branch would be disabilities such as ADHD, autism, speech defects and mental illness, even homelessness. All play a major role in statistics nationwide and the percentages are astounding in their growing numbers in just a brief period within recent history.
Moving along to environmental and nutritional issues which practically speak for themselves as legislators allow irradiated products onto the store shelves, pesticides are sprayed on fruits and vegetables and the frightening factors of genetically altered seeds begin to take precedence over organic and natural available in unlimited quantities.
The number of inner city children with lung diseases such as asthma and RSV have become almost the norm in many states due to lack of environmentally safe practices in both industrial waste and manufacturing to automobile regulations which the United States also falls substantially behind other countries presently.
And finally we need to look at educational funding and programs as a true road map in the dumbing down of the American youth, all fall under bureaucratic rules, regulation and law.
It is never the sole responsibility of the schools public and or private to provide the rich environment for a love of higher learning, and the discipline it takes to create the next Einstein or Picasso, yet in far too many schools the emphasis is on the wrong track to actually create an environment of interest for the students and instead forces the schools to base their curriculum on what will help raise the most governmental funding.
In this debate I will attempt to show how the responsibility does indeed fall on the government for the de evolution of the human psychological, physical and biological abilities and place the blame squarely in their hands where it belongs.
My Socratic question for you is quite simple:
How can the Dumbing down of the American people not be the responibility of the fradulent and greedy act of a deplorable and corrupt governing body?
At the same time the survey found that the proportion of adults who said they had read any kind of a book, fiction or nonfiction, that was not required for work or school actually declined slightly since 2002, to 54.3 percent from 56.6 percent.
Originally posted by antar
Your Socratic question #2:
I have to disagree to an extent about people not wanting to read.
The majority of adults are reading more now than ever with the introduction of the WWW, E-mail and E-books which are a private and convenient way to gain access to reading materials for many fast paced people with little time or even money as e books are often free to low cost.
When we begin to look at the current direction of children loosing their interest in reading we 'have' to blame government sponsored agendas. The no child left behind program is a perfect example.
Often smaller schools have no choice but to use the elementary computers for the disabled and developmentally challenged.
This sets the stage for the children of exceptional ability to be left behind. And this is the most important point to note, that the government sponsored programs create mediocrity by rewarding the challenged and displacing the needs and rewards of the exceptional students.
This is not a mistake or some strange mishap from an attempt to help the challenged reach to higher heights. This is a blatant attempt by our government to force schools into a state below the standards of acceptability. The brightest students can only take a few years of the dull
curriculum which is designed to challenge only the lowest levels.They are simply teaching dead subjects which have no place in the future of a technologically advanced civilization and in so doing are forcing children to loose interest from the first few years.
The entire educational process needs to rise to the challenges of the 21st century and if we took only a small portion of the ridiculous amounts of money used on the frivolous and the bailouts, can you imagine
how exciting the primary years could become for students?
I He said take for instance an Opthamologist, that if he was the best in his
profession and top in his class, at one time his pay would reflect that. But now with the socialization of his specialized field, he gets paid the same as the guy who graduated at the bottom of the class, or the guy that is just a poor Opthamologist with a bad track record or reputation.
He admitted that the rewards system is set up to create the same defeat as has happened in the middle and high school systems and that even though we still are considered to have some of the best colleges in the world, that soon that will also be changing.
He went on to talk about how many of the hospitals are desperate for new Doctors and yet why if you are truly intelligent, bright would you become a doctor with all of the pressure from malpractice, lawsuits, and a medium income after taxes and insurance companies get theirs?
Many of the brightest are no longer becoming specialists, rather becoming Wall street tycoons or studying other professions which have
the potential to make money.
So through regulations imposed by the government, the rewards system does nothing to reward the top of the class, the best in their fields, it does not encourage individuals to reach for excellence.
You ask why they are doing this? They cannot control the individual, the free thinker. They can and do reward mediocrity.
My second Socratic question to you:
If the government is responsible for the health and well being of the population, then why is it they continue to support the big pharacutical companies and make every attempt to ban alternative
health practices including attempts at making natural medicine and vitamins illegal?
Alternately, how does it help to raise the consciousness and mental health of children and individuals to be placed in record numbers on drugs that have serious known side affects? And how can this be anything but an action taken towards the dumbing down of America?
So, what is offshoring? Offshoring is a type of outsourcing. Offshoring simply means having the outsourced business functions done in another country. Frequently, work is offshored in order to reduce labor expenses. Other times, the reasons for offshoring are strategic -- to enter new markets, to tap talent currently unavailable domestically or to overcome regulations that prevent specific activities domestically
1. Do we need GM food in this country?
On the basis of what we have seen so far, we don't appear to need it at all. The benefits, such as there are, seem to be limited to the people who own the technology and the people who farm on an industrialised scale. We are constantly told that this technology may have huge benefits for the future. Well, perhaps. But we have all heard claims like that before
and they don't always come true in the long run - look at the case of antibiotic growth promoters in animal feedstuff...
2. Is GM food safe for us to eat?
There is certainly no evidence to the contrary. But how much evidence do we have? And are we looking at the right things? The major decisions about what can be grown and what can be sold are taken on the basis of studying what is known about the original plant, comparing it to the genetically modified variety, and then deciding whether the two
are 'substantially equivalent'. But is it enough to look only at what is already known? Isn't there at least a possibility that the new crops (particularly those that have been made resistant to antibiotics) will behave in unexpected ways, producing toxic or allergic reactions? Only
independent scientific research, over a long period, can provide the final answers.
3. What sort of world do we want to live in?
This is the biggest question of all. I raise it because the capacity of GM technology to change our world has brought us to a crossroads of fundamental importance. Are we going to allow the industrialisation of Life itself, redesigning the natural world for the sake of convenience and embarking on an Orwellian future? And, if we do, will there eventually be
a price to pay? Or should we be adopting a gentler, more considered approach, seeking always to work with the grain of Nature in making better, more sustainable use of what we have, for the long-term benefit of mankind as a whole? The answer is important. It will affect far more than the food we eat; it will determine the sort of world we, and our children, inhabit.
ATSDR has long advocated a comprehensive approach to promoting the environmental health of children. ATSDR has confirmed from more than 10 years of public health assessments, toxicological investigations, epidemiological studies, and reviews by expert work groups that children have unique characteristics that often place them at greater risk of adverse health effects when exposed to toxic substances emitted from hazardous waste sites or chemical releases. Children who live near hazardous waste sites may have greater exposures, greater potential for health problems, and less ability to avoid hazards than do adults. Exposure to hazardous substances can cause growth and development problems in children, such as learning disabilities, mental retardation, cerebral palsy, and hyperactive airways, as well as cancer.
Originally posted by antar
Your question actually poses a debate unto itself. However I will answer as best as possible in short.
Eventually each student will come back to her or his jigsaw group and will try to present a well-organized report to the group. The situation is specifically structured so that the only access any member has to the other five assignments is by listening closely to the report of the person reciting. Thus, if Tyrone doesn't like Pedro, or if he thinks Sara is a nerd and tunes her out or makes fun of her, he cannot possibly do well on the test that follows.
What makes the question of status problematic is that everyone can't be at the top at the same time. The amount of available status is fixed, so if someone moves up, someone else must move down. Many former high school students can attest to the vagaries of this system. Common sense dictates that if numerous students are focused on their status, with many enduring endless putdowns, it will negatively affect their academic and social development.
It's difficult to imagine a more artificial environment for socialization than the public high school. Children are segregated by age and move from grade to grade within a narrow band of their immediate peers. This is a completely foreign environment to the one high school graduates will face. The high school experience does not easily translate to the real world. Home-school critics falsely believe that in order to be properly socialized, a child needs to spend long hours with children in his or her peer group.
My Socratic question to you:
What part if any do you see the media as being responsible for the dumbing down of the American youth, and do you feel that video games and Asian based cartoons play a significant role in making children overly reliant upon outside stimulus for their imagination and critical thinking skills?
I will be arguing on the position that I do not believe that the government causes ignorance. First, let me define what I believe to be ignorant. Ignorance is ignoring the facts of a given situation. I will talk about different situations where people are ignorant and I hope to show why they are ignorant because of their social conditions and not because of something unseen.
As a result, the students are taught how to show empathy for one another, and, they are forced to learn how to work as a group. I believe one of the reasons that many students fail in school is because they have low self-esteem. They don’t get to show what they know. Perhaps your son if he read and he was in a jigsaw classroom would appreciate it because he would be able to show what he knows to the rest of the class, the class would appreciate your son, and then, he would feel accepted in the class.
I do not believe video games make people too reliant on images.
My Socratic question #4 to you is:
What do you believe we can do about how socialization is like in High-School? I believe we need to change the social hierarchy in High-School. I believe the current social hierarchy in High-School is too competitive and needs to change to allow more and more students who are left out to feel accepted. I think we need to begin a new age of tolerance. What are your views on this subject
Challenge Match: Frankidealist35 vs antar: Government Sponsored Ignorance?
When I first started reading this debate, I was struck by Frankidealst35’s opening as being “All over the place” so to speak.
In his “First Reply”, I was confused by his references to “Processed Food” and never fully recovered from that.
Antar’s opening was nicely laid out and gave the reader a good indication of where the debate was headed.
All through the debate, Frankidealist35 tended to agree with his opponent far too much. This is a debate and it was his position to “disagree”… In fact it was the purpose of the debate.
Frankidealist35 rallied somewhat later on in his assertions involving young people and reading. Yet he never pressed that to full advantage.
Now that being said, Frankidealist35 used the “Corporate argument” nicely, but again, did not press home the advantage.
I have not neglected antar in this judgment, it was just clear from the onset that antar was more focused and presented a better over all case.
While I personally believe in the side that Frankidealist35 took in this debate, I feel that he did not present a compelling argument when compared to antar’s direct and well formed presentation.
With that, I give the debate to antar.
Frankidealist35 vs antar: Government Sponsored Ignorance?
Both fighters made a reasonable start, but with neither really laying out the terms of the debate, this continued throughout the debate, with neither fighter really managing to get on top.
Both fighters used good rhetorical argument, and provided examples to back up their case..
Frankidealist35 seemed to rely on laying out the case for the pro position, ad then simply reacted to the con positions argument, rather than seizing the opportunity to further strngthen the position.
Some good work was undermined by this technique as we saw proactive rather than reactive arguments.
Antar made a good job of laying out the con position gradually, and not becoming embroiled in a piece by piece dissection attempt of opponents position, instead simply sticking to the position, and then tying the pieces together.
Antar had opponent reaching and made good points which opponent had to concede, through good use of logical argument and rhetoric.
Although neither fighter fully convinced, the judgement goes to Antar.